Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 27, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Michigan, the United States District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the expulsion of a student for making a threatening remark about a gun while on campus.  The student “made a remark about a gun to several other students…At least four students perceived the remark as a threat and reported it to their parents and (school officials).”  The shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan, in which  5 students were killed, had occurred one week earlier.  School officials, based upon the disciplinary history of the student, “referred him to the Board for an expulsion hearing.”  The student argued, inter alia, that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment when searching his person, backpack, and school locker. The student also alleges that he was expelled “without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  The court held that as to the Fourth Amendment, school officials “do not need probable cause to justify a search of a student at its inception. Indeed, recognizing the difference between school and law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court describes the lesser standard to justify school searches as a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing… Only unreasonable seizures violate the Fourth Amendment. Like searches, seizures are unreasonable if they are unjustified at their inception or unreasonable in scope.”  As to the Fourteenth Amendment and due process, the court explained that substantive due process requirements are violated “when discretionary government action is arbitrary and capricious, willful and unreasoning, conscience-shocking, or extremely irrational.”  Procedural process requirements are violated when a student shows that an expulsion occurs “without adequate process…(e.g.) when the individuals responsible for deciding whether to deprive a person of his interest are biased.”  The court dismissed the claims.  School officials “reasonably searched and seized” the student.  And no “reasonable juror” could conclude that (the student’s) expulsion shocks the conscience.”  Finally, “there is no convincing evidence in the record to support (the student’s) claim that the CCPS School Board prejudged him.”  The court opined that, the “Oxford shooting heightened the severity of student threats involving firearms at nearby Michigan public schools.” Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools (6th Circuit) Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools (District Court)

— In Washington, D.C., the U. S. Department of Education “released guidance to ensure that students in unsafe public schools can access safe alternatives.”  The Unsafe School Choice Option is “designed to ensure students in persistently dangerous schools are provided with an opportunity to attend a safe public elementary or secondary school, including a public charter school.”

— In Florida, the legislature has enacted a new policy expanding the scope of school safety regulations.  Senate Bill 1470 expands the state’s Guardian Program to include childcare centers.”

— In Virginia, the Loudoun County Sheriff is seeking the expansion of the school resource officer program to include the 65 elementary schools.  The Loudoun County Sheriff Strategic Plan reflects the belief that “if you have any kind of significant incident at a school, unarmed security is not going to be able to do much … They’re not part of our emergency response team, so they’re not going to know who to call, whether you need fire and rescue out there, whether you have a medical emergency, and what kind of steps that we take to notify parents.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 12, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Pennsylvania, the United States District Court, refused to dismiss a case involving allegations that a teacher “repeatedly sexually abused” a student.  The claims, based upon “42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX, and Pennsylvania negligence law,” had the gravity of denying immunity for educators and establishing liability for the school district because “on this record, a reasonable jury could conclude that the District’s manner of responding to repeated concerns about (the teacher’s) conduct and boundary violations amounted to a well-settled practice.”  The court continued to declare that dismissal was inappropriate because “this practice reflected deliberate indifference to the risk of teacher sexual misconduct.”  The dispositive evidence in the case was the HR Director for the school district who “testified, unequivocally, that the system designed to protect students was not functioning as intended. She concluded that progressive discipline did not “appear” to have occurred, that the District lacked “fidelity” in responding to repeated concerns, and that administrators repeatedly “started over” rather than escalating consequences. In her words, the system was “not working”—and whether to credit that testimony is a question for the jury.”  The court concluded that “the record also includes evidence that key misconduct documents were kept out of the personnel file, undermining the District’s ability to identify patterns and escalate responses.”  Calderaio v. Central Bucks School District(E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2026).

— In Maryland, “Montgomery County Public Schools will be testing an artificial intelligence weapons detection system pilot program at three schools.”  School officials say that “the system picks … up in real time and notifies an administrator or a nurse or whoever is the right person for the right job to be notified and triage the situation.”

— In Congress, HR 6809 has been introduced to “establish national school safety standards” for protecting campuses.  The provisions of the legislation include “silent panic alarms that directly notify law enforcement during emergencies. The legislation authorizes “the Federal School Safety Clearinghouse to conduct research and tests on technology to help protect children in schools and districts across the nation.”

— In Ohio, school officials in the Springfield City School District are implementing a policy to “sweep all buildings before and after school each day.”  The policy is in response to “threats were made against several district buildings and other locations throughout the city.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 3, 2026

by  • 

— In Nevada, the Supreme Court of Nevada defined “education record” for purposes of FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), reversing an order of the lower court that required educators to release all emails mentioning a student, “including emails stored on a Google cloud server.”  The parent filed a lawsuit challenging decision making by school officials about the special needs of her child.  She “sought the education records.”  “Believing that the materials (educators) initially provided in response were incomplete, (the parent) subsequently requested all emails mentioning (the student) that (educators) stored on a Google cloud server. (Educators) refused the request, and the issue was placed before the district court, which granted (the parent’s request) and ordered (the school) to turn over all emails that referred to (the student).”  The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “not every email that mentions a student and is stored on a school’s email server constitutes an education record under FERPA and its analogous Nevada statutes.”  Appyling the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Owasso Independent School District No. I–011 v. Falvo, the Court held that “to be an education record, a document or other material must be an institutional record stored in a designated place that is, typically, overseen by a designated individual responsible for maintaining such records.”  The Court reasoned that, “deliberate action to store such emails as institutional records is critical The school district thus ultimately decides what materials constitute institutional records that are part of a student’s record and then ensures that those materials are protected and preserved.”  Reversal of the order was necessary because “emails…do not necessarily comprise a student’s education records simply by virtue of mentioning that student.”  Going forward, the Court ruled that, “an individual email may become part of a student’s education records when the school district or its agent takes affirmative and intentional steps to treat the email as an institutional record and stores it with a designated individual in a designated place.”  Clark County School District v. Eighth Judicial District Court,141 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, 581 P.3d 407 (2025)

— In Pennsylvania, “school safety officers on School District of Philadelphia campuses will be issued “personal ballistic protection,” including bulletproof vests and handcuffs, by the beginning of next school year… Philadelphia’s 350 school safety officers are not sworn law enforcement officers and they do not carry firearms.”

— In Pennsylvania, “bipartisan legislation…would authorize Pennsylvania school entities to voluntarily adopt later start times for secondary schools … in response to studies indicating that adolescents require an average of 8 to 10 hours of sleep per night for optimal academic and physical performance.”

— In Idaho, the West Ada School District Board unanimously authorized arming school staff employees.  “Known as “campus sentinels,” on school campuses throughout the district…are separate from police-administered Student Resource Officers, (and) will be allowed to carry firearms at schools. They’d also be equipped with “wearable alert technology” that would allow them to immediately alert authorities to school emergencies.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 4, 2025

by  • 

— In Tennessee, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, affirmed the dismissal of a case involving an injury to a student that both the trial court and the appellate court declared to be “an unfortunate, but unforeseeable accident.”  The injury to the student occurred when “when a classmate, who was not aiming at the injured student, threw a pencil that ricocheted off a surface and hit the student in the eye.”  The injury was a serious one.  The pencil “hit (the injured student’s) eye, fully penetrating her eyeball.  (The injured student) underwent multiple reconstructive surgeries to try to remedy her injuries. (But the injured student’s) vision was permanently impaired, and she will be required to seek continual medical treatment to manage her injuries.”  The injured student filed a lawsuit “asserting that the classroom teacher was negligent and that the School System was, accordingly, vicariously liable.”  The governing rule of law states that “a risk is foreseeable if a reasonable person could foresee the probability of its occurrence or if the person was on notice that the likelihood of danger to the party to whom is owed a duty is probable.”  The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the student “was not injured by an inherently dangerous instrumentality but by a pencil, which a high school student can be expected to wield without teacher supervision…(and that) “a mechanical pencil is obviously capable of inflicting injury, but is not, in and of itself, a dangerous instrumentality and is used routinely in classrooms.”  Therefore, because neither the teacher nor the school district had “sufficient notice to anticipate that (the injured student) would be injured in this way… circumstances of this case present a freakish and unfortunate accident that simply could not have been foreseen.” Hammers v. Clarksville-Montgomery County Schools

— In Texas, officials in the Austin ISD are “asking Waymo to fix safety issues after its cars pass stopped school buses.”  Texas law requires vehicles to remain fixed in place when a school bus stops.  “Waymo said there was a software issue that led to the AVs passing the school buses, but during the incidents, the AV only proceeded when no people were in front of the car. It also said it worked quickly to fix the software issue.”

— In Arizona, officials in Coconino County are deploying a $500,000 grant to improve campus safety.  The focus of the safety upgrades falls upon “county’s county’s Accommodation District (which) serves students who face significant academic and personal challenges, including youth involved in the juvenile justice system and students experiencing trauma or instability. Many come from communities with high rates of poverty, and half of all students live within the Navajo or Hopi tribal nations.”  The Superintendent announced that the grant “allows us to address long-standing security gaps with a comprehensive, sustainable plan that protects both students and staff.”

— In Virginia, officials in the Charlottesville City Schools “are moving ahead with plans to bring police officers back to campuses next year, and they are revising key documents governing how officers will interact with students.”  Despite criticism of the policy from some in the community, the majority of the school board believes that students “should be able to come into school each morning and be focused on learning, and teachers should be focused on teaching; not whether they’re physically safe or whether there are fights or threats or safety incidents.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 3, 2025

by  • 

— In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the juvenile court has the authority to divert juvenile cases involving weapons possession on campus to a program in order to “avoid attaching to juveniles the stigma of a criminal.”  The case arose out of a student search when “administrators at the Dearborn School in the Roxbury section of Boston learned that a student might be in possession of a weapon. School administrators performed an administrative search, which revealed that the juvenile possessed a nine millimeter Glock pistol with six rounds of ammunition inside his “fanny pack” on his person. Consequently, Boston police officers arrived at the school and the juvenile was arrested and taken into custody.”  It was noteworthy that “although the juvenile did not possess a license to carry the firearm outside of his home or place of work, he did possess a valid firearm identification (FID) card.”  State law allows “a person from the age of fourteen to seventeen may apply for an FID card with a parent or guardian’s permission… to possess certain nonlarge capacity firearms and ammunition.”  Even so, however, a “delinquency complaint (was) issued in the Juvenile Court, charging the juvenile with unlawful possession of a firearm…;carrying a loaded firearm without a license…; and unlawful possession of ammunition.”  The student requested a formal diversion of the charges (Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF)) in which the court postpones a formal finding of guilt to allow the juvenile to successfully complete a probationary period with set conditions to justify dismissal of the case.  The juvenile court agreed that a CWOF was a lawful disposition of the case.  The government appealed.  On appeal the appellate court ruled that “the Legislature has granted Juvenile Court judges broad discretion to render individualized dispositions consistent with the best interests of the child…(such that) the aims of correction and redemption of delinquent children are to be accomplished in part by the very broad discretion allowed Juvenile Court judges with regard to disposition to avoid attaching to juveniles the stigma of a criminal.”  As to the CWOF diversion policy, the appellate court ruled that “a juvenile may request a CWOF upon tender of a plea or admission — unless the complaint alleges one of the enumerated offenses, which are all sex offenses.”  Therefore, the juvenile court judge “had the authority” to approve the diversion of the case.  Commonwealth v. Quahir Q.

— In Illinois, a “Chicago Public Schools (CPS) policy allows illegal immigrant students excused absences if they or their family members are afraid of federal immigration enforcement activities in the area.”

— In Tennessee, Wilson County are reporting lower levels of citations and arrests arising out of school incidents.  This is a continuing statistical trend from prior school years.  One official states that  “the goal is to always have a decrease in the number of arrests and citations issued and to focus on proactive prevention and de-escalation, so I believe that number reflects the great work that the school resource officers are doing.”

— In California, a revision in state policy now “criminalizes targeted threats to institutions, buildings and campuses.”  The old policy “was ambiguous as to whether someone could be criminally prosecuted if the threat was made against an institution rather than a specific person.”  Going forward, schools are protected against threats “even if an individual person is not specifically threatened.”